SPA Randolph Campus - Saint Paul, MN, USA
Explore the pool victory probability density for each fencer, with their actual victories highlighted in a box. Learn more.
| # | Name | Number of victories | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 1 | HOWLAND Jonas | - | 7% | 55% | 38% | |
| 2 | NAIDL Josiah | - | 6% | 35% | 59% | |
| 3 | MCKINLEY Luke | - | 8% | 39% | 53% | |
| 4 | LOCKWOOD Jacob | - | 18% | 81% | ||
| 5 | WAKEHAM Paul | 1% | 14% | 86% | ||
| 6 | GIEBLER Lucas | 2% | 30% | 69% | ||
| 7 | BERSCHEID Arthur | - | 24% | 75% | ||
| 7 | LINEBERRY Caden | 43% | 45% | 11% | ||
| 9 | PHONPRASANSACK Grayson | - | 2% | 15% | 41% | 41% |
| 10 | GLOVER George | - | 14% | 86% | ||
| 11 | CROOM Tucker | 2% | 23% | 76% | ||
| 12 | WAKEHAM Timothy | - | 1% | 10% | 38% | 51% |
| 13 | CAPERS Hunter | 13% | 49% | 39% | ||
| 14 | BREWNER Ethan | 1% | 8% | 38% | 53% | |
| 15 | HUANG Kai | 7% | 72% | 21% | ||
| 15 | WEISS Quintin | 9% | 42% | 49% | ||
| 17 | RUBY Asher | 41% | 54% | 5% | ||
| 18 | TOEWS Jackson | 7% | 40% | 42% | 10% | |
| 19 | MENASCO Juliun | 11% | 66% | 23% | ||
| 20 | WOJTALEWICZ Aiden | 60% | 36% | 3% | ||
| 21 | ZEITLER Blake | - | 9% | 45% | 46% | |
| 21 | FOSTERVOLD Castiel | 18% | 69% | 12% | ||
| 23 | GARSKE James | 7% | 39% | 43% | 10% | |
| 24 | IBARRA Alejandro | 20% | 51% | 29% | ||
| 25 | AHNEMANN Leif | 10% | 39% | 41% | 10% | |
| 26 | HOKANSON Braddock | 76% | 24% | 1% | ||
| 27 | WOODS Jarek | 28% | 62% | 11% | ||
| 28 | TRAN Allex | 3% | 20% | 40% | 31% | 6% |
| 29 | BASTODKAR Ved | 13% | 41% | 38% | 9% | |
| 30 | MARTIN Wesley | 60% | 35% | 5% | - | |
| 31 | KWAN Victor | 52% | 46% | 3% | ||
| 32 | ZINSER James | 62% | 33% | 5% | - | |
| 33 | NEELIMANDHU Sahil | 11% | 36% | 38% | 13% | 1% |
| 34 | GORDON Jack | 24% | 67% | 9% | ||
| 35 | REDWING III Thomas Missing ID | |||||
| 36 | FEEHAN Conor | 72% | 28% | 1% | ||
| 37 | THOMAS Carter | 14% | 45% | 35% | 5% | |
| 38 | OSTFIELD Mati | 13% | 37% | 35% | 13% | 2% |
| 39 | PABICH Noah Missing ID | |||||
| 40 | CRUZ Cole | 89% | 11% | - | ||
| 41 | TORTORELLO Bear | 27% | 54% | 19% | ||
| 42 | PERES Elijah Missing ID | |||||
| 43 | BUREAU Louis | 45% | 44% | 10% | ||
| 44 | ZWEBER Ben Missing ID | |||||
| 45 | CLICK Cole Missing ID | |||||
| 46 | FERRARA Asher | 18% | 40% | 31% | 10% | 1% |
| 47 | STELLPFLUG Zachary Missing ID | |||||
| 48 | KRUEGER Benjamin Missing ID | |||||
| 49 | BALDERES Gavin Missing ID | |||||
| 50 | BELL Andrew | 16% | 42% | 33% | 8% | 1% |
| 51 | DRAWZ Chase Missing ID | |||||
| 52 | SMITH Joseph Missing ID | |||||
| 53 | LOCKHART Dakota Missing ID | |||||
| 54 | BOMGARDNER Ben | 80% | 19% | 1% | ||
| 55 | CALATAYUD Bronson Missing ID | |||||
| 56 | UNGLAUB Maxwell | 18% | 41% | 31% | 9% | 1% |
| 57 | ANDERSON Norse | 37% | 45% | 16% | 2% | |
| 58 | DILLON Jack Missing ID | |||||
| 59 | WILLIAMS Ethan Missing ID | |||||
| 60 | FANG Ethan Missing ID | |||||
| 61 | TREAT Sam Missing ID | |||||
| 62 | CHRISTENSEN Jack Missing ID | |||||
| 63 | SZNEWAJS Ben Missing ID | |||||
| 64 | ROBERTS Calvin Missing ID | |||||
| 65 | CROSON William (Billy) Missing ID | |||||
| 66 | WANGDU Dorjee Missing ID | |||||
| 67 | YATES Graeme | 19% | 68% | 12% | 1% | |
| 68 | CHRISTOPHER Louis | 64% | 31% | 4% | - | |
| 69 | PEDERSON Owen Missing ID | |||||
| 70 | BIEL Liev | 1% | 10% | 35% | 43% | 11% |
| 71 | PEICHEL Joshua Missing ID | |||||
| 72 | DEPIES Ben Missing ID | |||||
| 73 | BLUMHARDT Evan | 3% | 47% | 44% | 6% | |
| 74 | ROY Griffin Missing ID | |||||
| 75 | SKIBELL Cyrus Missing ID | |||||
| 76 | OBRIEN George Missing ID | |||||
| 77 | CASEY Liam Missing ID | |||||
| 78 | MOORE Angus Missing ID | |||||
| 79 | BURROWS Aaron Missing ID | |||||
| 79 | AHRENS Declan Missing ID | |||||
| 81 | UNDERWOOD Dyllan Missing ID | |||||
| 82 | BENNETT Elijah | 13% | 38% | 36% | 13% | 1% |
| 83 | CHRAST Edward Missing ID | |||||
| 83 | NWOKOCHA Obi Missing ID | |||||
| 85 | BOWER Olly Missing ID | |||||
| 86 | GUETTLER Soren Missing ID | |||||
The heatmap in this table provides a visual representation of the victory probability distribution for each fencer in their respective pools:
This heatmap visualization offers an immediate understanding of each fencer's expected performance compared to their actual results.